Crowdfunding Question

[wymberley]

Briefly for those who haven't seen the news, Boris Johnson is subject to a private prosecution by a Marcus Ball which he (Ball) crowd funded to pay the costs and the case relates to a statement Johnson made about the UK/EU.

Question: If Johnson is acquitted and he then decides to counter sue for defamation and in view of his political standing, he does so for, say, £10m are those who contributed to the fund also liable if Johnson was to win his case?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Now that is an interesting question!

[wymberley]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Now that is an interesting question!

I thought so as a "yes" might just concentrate a few minds if WJ head out with their begging bowl again is what I

was thinking.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Culpible by association or funding.

[Rewulf]

Anonymous donations, straight from mr soros open society slush fund, so doubtful Im afraid .

[old man]

18 minutes ago, wymberley said:

I thought so as a "yes" might just concentrate a few minds if WJ head out with their begging bowl again is what I

was thinking.

Did not Packham et al, not isolate themselves legally in case the challenge went awry?

[wymberley]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Anonymous donations, straight from mr soros open society slush fund, so doubtful Im afraid .

Tad naive about these things and did not realise that donations were not traceable, but figured there'd be a reason why my gut instinct was to not approve of this funding for such/similar purposes.

[peck]

Surely the chap who's name is on the writ will be responsible.   (Marcus Ball)

[panoma1]

I don't see it's anyone's business who someone is stupid enough to give their money to?.....but if they are looking for a home for their spare cash.......look no further! 😜

Edited May 29, 2019 by panoma1

[wymberley]

5 minutes ago, peck said:

Surely the chap who's name is on the writ will be responsible.   (Marcus Ball)

Funnily enough, that's why I asked because I don't know and simply figured that anyone who coughed up the dosh could be equally held to be instrumental in bringing the case and therefore possibly liable for any consequences.

[grrclark]

No, unless it can be demonstrated that any  contributor did so in a way to significantly influence the overall proceeding or to exert undue influence.

An example being I will donate to your campaign if you extend the lawsuit to include......

There is precedent established in this respect.

For ordinary punters pitching in donations without conditions they would have no shared or consequential liability.

[wymberley]

21 minutes ago, grrclark said:

No, unless it can be demonstrated that any  contributor did so in a way to significantly influence the overall proceeding or to exert undue influence.

An example being I will donate to your campaign if you extend the lawsuit to include......

There is precedent established in this respect.

For ordinary punters pitching in donations without conditions they would have no shared or consequential liability.

Many thanks.

[Novice]

Commercial third party litigation funders are potentially liable to meet an adverse costs award. 

I'm not sure whether there is a precedent for corwdfunding by individuals. If there's not, it's high time someone took a stand and pushed the Courts for a decision. Might stop the likes of Wild Justice in their tracks. If the decision confirms no liability on the part of the individual funders, then the position hasn't changed that much. 

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, Novice said:

Commercial third party litigation funders are potentially liable to meet an adverse costs award. 

I'm not sure whether there is a precedent for corwdfunding by individuals. If there's not, it's high time someone took a stand and pushed the Courts for a decision. Might stop the likes of Wild Justice in their tracks. If the decision confirms no liability on the part of the individual funders, then the position hasn't changed that much. 

Yep, agree entirely. If grrclark is correct - and I don't doubt him for one minute - it means that it is possible for an individual to wreak havoc  with funds obtained from an unknown source and be impervious to any comeback proportional to the damage caused.

[oldypigeonpopper]

5 hours ago, peck said:

Surely the chap who's name is on the writ will be responsible.   (Marcus Ball)

hello, this would be my thinking to,if you give money to a crowd funding scheme will it show who has paid in ? why crowd fund like that of  Marcus Ball when he is very wealthy ? 

[grrclark]

48 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Yep, agree entirely. If grrclark is correct - and I don't doubt him for one minute - it means that it is possible for an individual to wreak havoc  with funds obtained from an unknown source and be impervious to any comeback proportional to the damage caused.

The named individual will always be responsible for repercussion, it’s just the contributors behind it that might not.

It means that individuals can contribute to causes without obligation beyond their donation, unless they take a position to influence.  So monies given in good faith and without encumbrance or obligation.

I suspect that if it could be proven that if the contribution was made while fully aware the cause they were contributing to was illegal or malicious with intent to damage then that could be challenged.

[wymberley]

15 hours ago, grrclark said:

The named individual will always be responsible for repercussion, it’s just the contributors behind it that might not.

It means that individuals can contribute to causes without obligation beyond their donation, unless they take a position to influence.  So monies given in good faith and without encumbrance or obligation.

I suspect that if it could be proven that if the contribution was made while fully aware the cause they were contributing to was illegal or malicious with intent to damage then that could be challenged.

I hear what you're saying, but I can't help thinking that if someone takes somebody to task via a court of law for whatever reason and in the event that that somebody is found to be innocent of the charge made and as a result of the proceedings has suffered and decides to counter sue and that court subsequently agrees and sets damages against the someone who it then transpires cannot meet the figure awarded from their own pocket, then those instrumental in assisting the case to be heard should be equally liable. One option would be for an insurance against this scenario to be taken out and paid for by the crow funded amount prior to the proceedings commencing.

[tandytommo]

Best ask the Court of European Justice !!!. If he gets banged up by our courts he could always appeal to them (would love the irony of that) 

[Guest]

Can I get crowd funding for a new gun .they seam to do it for everything else 

[Vince Green]

Should crowd funding be allowed for politically motivated ends? that certainly wasn't the original concept, it was for schools to raise money for sports equipment and things like that.

In the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire several crowdfunding appeals sprung up almost immediately and big amounts rolled in, one fund I believe netted over £2 million. Since then lots of questions have been asked about that money. I don't need to repeat the questions. Sufficient to say that it turns out there is no regulation on crowd funding so the person setting up the fund can more or less do what they like with the money that they get. They are not constrained by the same rules as if they were a charity or a school. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

34 minutes ago, Swinton said:

Can I get crowd funding for a new gun .they seam to do it for everything else 

 

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

Should crowd funding be allowed for politically motivated ends? that certainly wasn't the original concept, it was for schools to raise money for sports equipment and things like that.

In the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire several crowdfunding appeals sprung up almost immediately and big amounts rolled in, one fund I believe netted over £2 million. Since then lots of questions have been asked about that money. I don't need to repeat the questions. Sufficient to say that it turns out there is no regulation on crowd funding so the person setting up the fund can more or less do what they like with the money that they get. They are not constrained by the same rules as if they were a charity or a school. 

It would appear you can get "crowd-funding" for a new gun then, good luck.

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, tandytommo said:

Best ask the Court of European Justice !!!. If he gets banged up by our courts he could always appeal to them (would love the irony of that) 

Youre coming out with some belters lately 😄

In your view , what is your odds on a conviction and jail sentence  ?

[tandytommo]

7 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Youre coming out with some belters lately 😄

In your view , what is your odds on a conviction and jail sentence  ?

I'm no legal expert , but this case was brought some time ago and the British Justice System is held in high regard throughout  the world, there are a lot of checks and balances in our legal system and a lot of hoops to jump through before it gets to the Crown Court. The Judiciary must think that there is a case to answer. My guess is that because he's a white, well connected public school boy toff, he'll get off.

 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, tandytommo said:

 The Judiciary must think that there is a case to answer. My guess is that because he's a white, well connected public school boy toff, he'll get off

Is that the same Judiciary that's made up of 'white well connected schoolboy toffs'? 

[tandytommo]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Is that the same Judiciary that's made up of 'white well connected schoolboy toffs'? 

Yeah they've got to be seen to be taking this seriously but when it comes down  to the nitti gritty at the Crown Court a way will be found to make sure he gets off and thus justice can be seen to be done!